The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a fact that the defendant made a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that he saw the victim's desire, the defendant was assaulted by the victim's children, and was able to take a bath against the victim in the situation where he saw the victim's desire from the victim, which led the defendant to know, this constitutes a justifiable act because it does not violate social rules by passive resistance, and thus, the court below convicted the defendant. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. "Act that does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000, Sept. 26, 2003). Between persons who conduct a fighting match, the act of attack and defense has been conducted consecutively, and the act of attack and defense has the nature of both attack and defense at the same time, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as a "political act" for the purpose of defense by leaving only one party's act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958 Decided February 11, 2010, etc.). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was punished for the victim’s speech and behavior due to parking problems, and the victim was unable to park the victim, and the defendant took a bath as stated in the facts charged, and the victim’s child assaulted the victim, and the victim’s child was reported to the police, thereby recognizing the termination of fighting with the scene.

In full view of the above legal principles, the defendant is going through fighting with the victims and children.